Australian Football has endured one wild ride recently. Allegations, drama, emotions, airing dirty laundry – it’s enough to make the writers of The Bold and the Beautiful look on with envy.
It has caused grief, affected livelihoods and divided fans of the game. All fans love the game, however I have sat back stunned at the inability of some to properly identify the root causes of the issues that face us. The inability to see that the problem lies with the play, not the actors.
To briefly recap, we have had the drama with Clive Palmer. Although going about it the wrong way, Palmer has raised some valid points. Most fans however defend the FFA in what they see as an attack on our game.
Recently Perth owner Tony Sage has stirred the pot, declaring he would refuse to fund both the women’s and youth teams. Again, fans have poured onto social media expressing their disgust. Tinkler threatening to sue? Outrage amongst fans.
The reality is these owners, who have put millions into the clubs, are being crucified by fans more intent on addressing the symptoms rather than the cause. Let’s also consider there has been a revolving door of club owners. What is the common denominator in all of this? Football Federation Australia. But let us not stop at owner unrest.
During the first seven years, the FFA has chosen to ignore key recommendations pertaining to the stability and wellbeing of any domestic football competition (boutique stadiums anyone?). They have kept to a rigid sponsorship program which has prevented clubs from obtaining additional funds, and denying them independence.
They had for a number of years neglected the A-League, instead seeking a silver bullet in the form of winning the hosting rights the World Cup, promoting the Socceroos in the mistaken belief that the A-League would ride on their coat-tails.
What they should have been doing is promoting the A-League in its own right. Planning for the future, building stable foundations.
Should we delve into their treatment of traditional football teams? Their lack of recognition of our footballing heritage, such as refusing to acknowledge the Glory’s 10 years of existence, for example. Or maybe the backroom deals.
A license given to the Rovers Franchise, which had been around for six months and didn’t even have sufficient financial backing. Other bids, in the works for over one year, were ignored and thrown on the scrap heap.
Questions abound over the World Cup bid, and the consultants. The sacking of Bonita Mersiades. A government bailout needed to prop up the organization. The firing of a significant number of FFA employees because the FFA was bleeding money. The list goes on.
So has the FFA learned from their mistakes? Well, no. They are again seeking that silver bullet, this time in the form of a TV rights deal, in the hope that it will make all their problems and the results of their mismanagement disappear.
The fledgling league has had two collapsed clubs, one on life support, and the Rovers, which failed to get off the ground. No clubs are making money.
The solution they propose? Bring in another two clubs! We can do it. Due diligence? Probably as much as was carried out the Rovers, or Gold Coast United, or the Fury for that matter.
And what is truly remarkable is the sentiment of the masses, caught up in this apparent euphoria to defend our game.
Fans on forums are eagerly discussing the prospect of new teams in the competition, shooting down owners who dare question the system, in effect defending the whole rotten structure. This is ignoring the fundamental issue, that it is this structure, the structure of Australian football that is flawed.
Unless the structure is changed, we will continue to have the same issues until the whole thing comes crashing down. The actors change, the script remains the same.
Many of you would have seen the movie Ice Age. In it, there is a scene where a group of dodos throw themselves off cliffs or burn themselves, until ultimately, because of their own stupidity, they render themselves extinct.
Remind anyone of the FFA?
jbinnie
Guest
Stevo - "Why shouldn't the FFA give them (Heart) a leg up?????". A good question though it could be construed a little differently if you happen to be a member of Victory,(who are actually "supplying" the vast majority of the fans to these games).Then what about Fury who were averaging the same amount of fans as Heart (minus their derby games), didn't they deserve a "leg-up" as well?. The other thing I find difficult to understand from Melbourne contributors is this referring back to membership bases.Ok,so they are pulling in working capital selling memberships and season tickets but the truth of their attraction to football fans is surely the numbers that turn up to watch,is it not?,and to this end I think the awarding of 2 "home" games against Victory in 2 consecutive seasons could be construed as the FFA trying to convince people their expansion policy is working when in fact evidence is overwhelming to the contrary. jb
Stevo
Guest
You totally neglect the advantage that the first team has in establishing a membership base - MV had 5 years to create a solid base. What if Heart and MV were granted licenses at the same time? I'd say membership would be roughly equal now at probably 10000 plus or minus a bit. So why shouldn't the FFA give a second team a leg up. That's the way AFL have been doing it - unashamedly.
Stevo
Guest
Talking dribble. The team will be stretching its membership towards 9000 and pretty much on a solid footing for the future. I'll be there next year and the next and so on along with other supporters, old and new. You must have a HAL death wish!
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
No problem - I guess we are never going to agree. You are convinced the HAL is failing and I'm convinced the HAL is developing exactly as I expected. Regardless, each week I've enjoyed wonderful domestic club football for 6 months during the past 7 years and am already enthused about next season. Next week MVFC is holding a nice "thank you" function for loyal fans, who have been Members for 5+ years and in the off-season I hope to be getting more involved with the club's social events. I'm having the time of my life since the HAL started ... I feel sorry for the whingers, who seem to be sad, angry & frustrated 24 x 7 x 365.
Nick1
Guest
As easy as it was when the FFA was confident clubs would be breaking even after 5 season? The strucure is rotten mate. It is in need of fixing. Through their own failures the FFA are putting the tv deal at risk.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Nick1 & jb Since I actually attend HAL games, I'm willing to back my experiences & knowledge of the HAL as equal to any other fan in Australia. Nick1 talks about clubs falling over. Clubs have lost money; so what? AFL clubs & NRL clubs lose money too. The fact is the average loss per HAL club is $2m p.a. Yes, some clubs like SFC & MHT have lost more, which means other clubs have lost less! If every club in the HAL can limit its losses to $2m, then, as far as I'm concerned, break-even is well within grasp. Why? Well, the FFA has all but guaranteed they will provide at least an extra $1.2m p.a. to each club from the sale of the new TV rights. So, then, we have $0.8m shortfall. To make up this $0.8m shortfall each club could easily: 1. increase sponsorship by $10k per home game (ground advertising, shirt naming rights) = $130k 2. increase average home crowd by 1k: 1000 x 13 x $25 = $325k 3. sell one piece of merchandise to each regular fan (assuming 10k regular fans & profit $35 on merchandise sale): 10000 x $35=$350k Too easy lads. I know you both want to be pessimistic about the future. I actually attend HAL games & I see blue sky ahead. :-)
j binnie
Guest
Kasey - A well put together opinion on where we were ,what happened ,where we have got to, & hopefully where we might get to,& it is here I must highlight a phrase you have used concerning your "gut feel" & I quote "with some astute decision making". Surely that is what at least 50% of the contributions to all these blog columns are about, "decision - making", the success or otherwise of decisions put in place,& trialed & decisions being constantly debated but not yet acted upon. I won't bore the reader with details but up to this point it has to be agreed by any reasonable thinker,that some of the major decisions have not been what one would class as successful, World Cup, expansion,national trophy,linking with "grassroots" football, & of course our much discussed "new" coaching programmed which has yet to show success despite the millions of dollars being poured into the set-up. Not doom & gloom , but nevertheless areas that should have produced positive signals before now. That brings us back,not to the decision making,but WHO is making the decisions,& are they as productive as they might be?, or ,heaven forbid, costly failures? jb
PeterK
Guest
Maybe send the ideas to the FA commission?
Kasey
Guest
The growth from NSL to ‘nothing’ to HAL season1 through to HAL season 2 gave a few people unrealistic expectations that it was just going to be an un-erring path of upwards curves as football marched its way to the top of the tree. History (and experience of the real world in a number of areas) demonstrates that this just doesn’t occur. In every other first-world nation(USA – MLS, Japan – J.League) where football got a late start and is competing against other more established sports(USA gridiron – NCAAFB and the juggernaut that is NFL, Japan – Baseball) for eyeballs and attention. The initial phase of the journey could be described as act1: the opening – with a bang. In both countries expectations were raised that the newcomer would continue to build on its spectacular rise, but nature isn’t like that. In all fields, exponential growth is unsustainable over a longer period of time. Even the greatest machine known to man, the human body; grows in fits and starts. It grows and then rests (consolidates) before continuing to grow again. This is where the term growth spurt originates. In MLS, a market that closely resembles Australia in terms of established sports even though the country is 15 times larger in population than ours it is interesting to note that their high water mark arrived in MLS season 1(2006) 17,406 average attendance. It wasn’t until 15 years later in season 16(2011) that MLS were able to surpass that high water mark with 17,869. My gut feel is that with some astute decision making Australia’s HAL high water mark of season 3(2007-08): 14,610 could be surpassed with the advent within 5 years of a 2nd Sydney team. The total Melbourne attendance for div1domestic football has risen from approx 150,000/season in the NSL days to a tick under 400,000/season with 2 Melbourne based HAL teams in only 7 years. With Western Sydney the supposed heartland of football and derbies recognized as the lifeblood of football the world over, a 2nd Sydney team if done correctly could be the jump-start for a second phase of growth for the local league. Its not all ice cream and sherbet though, tough decisions need to be made and we football fans need to continue supporting the game at all levels, but it certainly isn’t the doom and gloom that some would present
PeterK
Guest
We in NQ believe that if Oz had won the WC hosting rights, then probably NQF would still be around!
Nick1
Guest
jbinnie- yes thank you mate. My comment should have been more clear on midweek games. They have cut down the number of mid week games, not eliminated them.
jbinnie
Guest
Axelv - Please "hold the phone " on the Heart,it is early days for them & they do have a problem, they are playing well & that means higher wage bills, they also have a "foreign" coach & ,if gossip is to believed,they come with a much higher price tag that their local counterpart.So it could be said that Heart's "outgoings" this season will be up there with the other leading clubs,& that brings us to income from gates. Heart have been subsidised over the 2 years of their existence by the FFA fixtures committee who have granted them 2 "home" games against the best supported team in the HAL resulting in 2 gates this year of 26,600 & 26,400 a total of 53,000 for a game average of 26,500, Compare this to the average gained at their other 12 home games of 6,178. Last season the same arrangement resulted in the 2 "home" derby games attracting 49,000,a game average of 24,500 against the average for the other 13 home games of 5790. So it can be argued that were Heart "standing alone" they would have attracted an extra 400 to their average gate this season,not a lot when one considers how well they have been playing.They have certainly cut their "outgoings" by using younger ,less experienced players, but again it could be argued that some of the 'ex" players have been employed by the club. So, to sum up,despite their success on field the road for Heart is still a long one with the usual pitfalls,just lets hope they stay the course without the FFA fixture committee adding it's help if & when three games v the same opponents are no longer needed in the programme .jb
jbinnie
Guest
Nick 1 - I have just gone to bat for you and ,while posting ,have come across your reply to Fussball which must have been composed and sent while I was typing. Your first point is well put and contains some very good debatable assertions. Crowds - As in any new offering to the public,any public, one could expect interest to be very high at the start with a fully expected drop off occurring back to what could be deemed the norm.It is during that drop-off time that marketing strategies have to be brought into play to counter the effects of natural drop off. (Victory this year are an excellent example of that phenomenon at work with Kewell and then Emerton attracting 40,000 and 38,000 crowds and then the perceived advantage being allowed to slip the club back to it's normal 20.000 average. Of course the team's performance did not help either). Now the FFA did not get rid of mid-week games (which did affect drastically average crowds),they simply paid lip service to the concept by cutting down but still maintaining their "take it to the country policy" which had exactly the same effect on gate averages. Your last statement ,except the crowd number phenomenon which I have explained, I cannot argue with,the evidence is too strong. jb
Nick1
Guest
ps - people make the ,mistake of listening to the FFA's dialogue rather then seeing its actions. Clubs gone, no club making profit, FFA cutting its staff, W-league in trouble - doing all they can to survive till the next tv deal, while saying "hey two new teams coming along". The actions of the organisation tell the true story. 3 clubs gone in 7 years, Rovers not even happening - not a model for sustainability is it?
jbinnie
Guest
Fussball -Cut Nick1 just a little slack. Your HAL crowd observations are all spot-on except that it will take a game or two this weekend to pass last year's total attendance which was 1,380,480 after 165 games whereas today,before the game tonight ,the figure stands at 1,367,650 for 130games. Also care should be taken when measuring HAL comment on popular TV news sources,you may well be on the increase in Victoria but in Brisbane the HAL barely rates a mention on the popular channels at sports news times,whereas ,as one local contributor noted,the public get told who farted at Broncos training that day. Your assessment on international achievement,while correct in detail ,could also be debated ,for it could be said that the 2006 WC qualifying tournament was actually played before the FFA came into being ,certainly in a weaker qualifying group. Nick 1 could also fire back with areas where we have not succeeded after many years of success at "under-age levels" despite the huge investment in dollars that has been poured into the effort,an effort ,that just last week showed evidence that further expertise has been called in (at what expense,?), with Alfred Galustian of Coerver coaching, working with our own D of C in an attempt to improve the status quo. For your information the Coerver Method came into being in the USA around 1984 so could not have been any real part of our so called Golden Generation's football education ,in fact I distinctly remember one H Kewell going into print at one time hotly denying he had ever participated in their method of teaching the skills of the game. Just keeping the record straight. jb
Nick1
Guest
Fuss - but you are missing the point. I am speaking of structures/finances here. The structure is unsustainable. The costs are too high, sponsorship limitations are killing the clubs. Crowds are one thing, however I am speakign of sustainability adding overall value to the product. On a small aside for crowds - they are down 25% from their peak, and as it stands, the A-league crowd average is down from season one not up (10,533 as opposed to 10,955). Whats more you have more games then season 1, more teams. Also - the FFA got rid of midweek games which were attracting poor crowds and dragged down the averages. Lifting the avg from last year. However I need to pull you up on one stat. So far there have been fewer people attending this season (with 1 round to go) then last. Granted it will be surpassed. But again - I am speaking about sustainability. You remember the FFA saying by season 5 they wanted all teams to be proitable. Didnt happen - no clubs are making money. Clubs are falling over. What good it is discussing crowds (whihc have declined significantly from their peak at any rate) if there is no sustainability.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Nick1 What are you on about? Have you been following the HAL closely for the past 7 years or are you simply sprouting snippets you've read in the tabloid press? In HAL Yr 7 60% more people will have attended HAL H&A matches than Yr 1. With 1 round to play, the total number of people attending HAL this year is greater than last year ... despite there being 30 fewer games played this year! Additionally, TV ratings have boomed this year; sponsorship dollars are at their highest levels, club membership is at its highest level, more column inches on mainstream news websites devoted to HAL than ever before; more coverage of HAL matches on mainstream news than ever before. And, that's just talking about domestic club football. On the international front: * Senior men's team qualified for 2 x FIFA WC * Senior mens team: 2nd in Asia * Senior women's team: Champions of Asia * u19 Men's team: 2nd in Asia * u16 Men's team: equal 3rd in Asia * etc. etc. Can you please provide data to corroborate your claims that "we are in the same situation as before"?
Nick1
Guest
Come on guys - this is the issue facing our game. It is about addressing causes not outcomes. Most people here are addressing outcomes. Think about it - 7 years ago we needed Foxtel and had to sacrifice FTA tv in order for the game to survive. 7 years on, we are still having the same debate - "should the socceroos be on FTA, it will take away $$$ from the Fox Deal"...Well Im sorry not good enough. The FFA had 7 years to build the A-league brand, increase it's value, improve its finances, its structures. Instead clubs have gone bust, and others are losing money. So instead of 7 years on of being in a situation where the Socceroos on FTA will enhance the game, we are in the same situation as before - worrying if it could hurt us. Problem - FFA!
jbinnie
Guest
QsAF - The answer to your question"why didn't they open the entire stadium'?. To save money,for exactly the same reason Palmer did what he did. Now I appreciate what you were implying with your "add on" about advertising a "Palmer free" match,but what you have to realise is that these men are not over-heated emotional football fans,in fact they are the opposite, they judge "emotion" from figures and nowhere is there evidence that ,even with advertising, more that 4000 would turn up to watch GCU v Perth,hence the "token" gesture. A sad fact of life. jb
Midfielder
Guest
AR What a brilliant line .... """Or maybe do an in depth analysis of why the SBS ratings are so low and they can’t grow thier football ratings"""